NAFTA
AND NATIONAL IDENTITY
NAFTA - the North American Free Trade Agreement - took effect on the 1 of st January, 1994, linking the United States, Canada and Mexico in the world’s largest
free trade zone with a population of more than three hundred sixty million. The main objective of NAFTA was to enable the free flowof goods and services by re
moving or substantially reducing taxes and tariffs. The preamble of the agreement states that the governments of the countries “resolved to strengthen the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among their nations”. From the very beginning of the negotiations it was obvious that this “cooperation among nations” could not be achieved without respectfor each other.1
1 Canada Year Book 1997, Ottawa: Statistics Canada 1997, p. 292.
2 Ibidem., pp. 224-238; Yon Gotta Have ART!, New York: McKinsey & Company 1997, p. 1.
The Canadians aware of the economic and cultural powerof the United States, attempted to establish a way in which to protect their national and cultural identity.
This attitude should not be astonishing. The total arts and cultural activities in Can
ada during the fiscal year of 1992-1993 generated revenues of 16 billion Canadian dollars, while the revenues generated two years later in New York State alone amounted to 13 billion US dollars. American commercial cultural industries such as Hollywood films, pop, rock or country music generate incredibly high income, and the removal ofall barriers could have overshadowed Canadian cultural production.
(It suffices to mention the one billion two hundred dollars earned by Titanic-, note bene a film made bya director born in Canada - James Cameron). 2
This considerable danger was especially visible in T.V. and film productions. It was also quite possible that the flow of books and newspapers could threaten Ca
nadian publishing companies. It was easier for Canada to establish regulations pro
tecting its cultural life since, in the former Free Trade Agreement between the USA and Canada signed in 1987, the US had granted Canada a provision to protect its culture. Canada has carried the provision into NAFTA and is using it selectively to restrict the US entertainment and media business from growing in Canada. The US has triedto renegotiatethis aspectof NAFTAbut to no avail as Canada hasrefused.
After a couple ofyears of NAFTA’s existance it turned out that cultural identity was not as simple as had been previously assumed. In 1997:
• Three quarters of the television watched every night by Canadians was offor
eign origin, usually American.
• Four out of every five magazines sold on the newsstands in Canada were for
eign magazines, usuallyAmerican.
• Foreign films took up96 percent ofthe screen time in Canadianmovietheatres, mainlyfrom the United States.
• Seventy percent of the content on Canadian radio stations was non-Canadian, usually from the UnitedStates.
Thus, in spite ofthe provisions inserted by Canada there emerged the feeling that Canadianculture and identity were indanger. Even the former negotiator, Mel Clark, came to the conclusion that Canadian culture was not protected under NAFTA and published his open letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He stated that NAFTA gave Americans the unilateral right to decide if a Canadian protection of cultural identity was inconsistent with the Agreement, with no possibility forCanada to dis
cuss such accusations. It was seen by Clark as “putting Canadian culture, national identity, sovereignty and pride at risk."3 *
3 Canadian Culture Not Protected Under NAFTA,
http: //infoweb. magi. com/-ccpa/articles/article60t. html, (12 April 2001).
3 R. Atkey, Canadian Cultural Industries Exemption From NAFTA - Its Parameters,
“Canada-US Law Journal”, Vol. 23, 1997, pp. 177-200.
But, on the other hand, during this period Canada experienced rapid growth of cultural activities. Also in 1997:
• Television series produced in Canada were doing better than ever before, both domestically and internationally, (eg. The X-Files ).
• More than three-quarters of all magazines read regularly by Canadians were delivered to their homes through subscriptions and controlled circulation; 94 percent of these were Canadian-owned publications.
• Canadian-owned companies produced approximately 29 percent of the films shown in Canadian theatres. On a weekly basis, Canadian-owned distributors distributedapproximately 30 percent of the top-grossing films in Canada.
• Canada’s exports of cultural goods and services exceeded $3 billion, an in crease ofalmost 100 percent since 1990. The United States represented more than80 percent ofthis market. 3
The cases of Country Music Television and Sports Illustrated, which faced legal barriers preventing them from expansion in Canada, prove that efforts to protect cultural industrieswere quite efficient. But one should remember that the US enter tainment industry, in response to the barriers on CMT and Sports Illustrated re
quested compensation of 503 million to 787 milliondollars.
Cultural industries can, and rather should, be considered as a branch of the economy related to culture butwith the obvious goal of achieving the highest possi ble profit. One cannot disagree with the opinion that these industries shape pop
culture, especially modem public and private television. Protecting cultural indus tries, however, is not the same as protecting culture itself and cultural identity. Cul
ture and art are very often the product of what is referred to as non-profit sector.
With the supportof public money non-profitinstitutions and groups create opportu
nities for everyone to be involved in cultural life, to participate in the process of creation andeven to stimulate one’s own talents.5
5 New York State Council on the Arts 1996/1997 Funding Report, New York: New York State Council on the Arts 1998, p. 5.
6 New York State Council on the Arts, New York: New York State Council on the Arts 1999, pp. 1-2.
We can easily notice the great difference between the United States and Canada.
While an impressive amount of public money is spent on culture and the arts in Canada, such support in the United States is very restricted. In the mid-nineties all three levels of the Canadian government spent a combined $58 billion dollars on culture, while public support for the arts in the United Statesdid notreach even one billion dollars. At present the US federal and state governments spend on culture less than 2 dollars per capita. The examination ofcultural programs administered by state orprovincial authorities can show if there is any reflection of the influence of NAFTA on cultural policies and the problemof national identity on both sides of the Canada-United Statesboundary.
The New York State Council on the Arts is a funding agency that supports the activities of non-profit arts and cultural organizations in New York State and helps to bring high-quality artistic programs to the citizens of the state. The Council defines its mission as: “to prevent and expand the rich and diverse cultural resources that are and will become the heritage of New York’s citizens.” Havingassumed this mis
sion the New York State Council on the Arts further defines its goals, which are mainly to developed vital ecosystem of individual artists and cultural organizations that support the creation, presentation, critical review, and distribution of arts and culture, and strive to make art and cultureaccessible for allcitizens of the state. The support of the Council is restricted to initiatives that are to take place within the boundaries of New York State. There are no possibilities of spending state money onprojects that are tobe realizedin other states, not to mention other countries. 6
The present policy of the Council stresses the necessity of preserving the cultural diversity of the state. For this is reason the State of New York substantially supports the program on Folk Arts, which is committed to maintaining the extraordinary cultural and stylistic diversity of New York State’s folk arts and has as its primary mission to support activities that present and perpetuate traditions withincommuni
ties. Another program with substantialsupportis Special ArtsServices, which aims to enrich the artistic pluralismof the State by supporting the professional arts activi
ties of African/Caribbean, Latino/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native Ameri- can/Indian, andother communities seeking toperpetuatedistinctethnic traditions.
One can easily notice that the program of the New York State Council on the Arts does not take into consideration the existence ofNAFTA and the possible in
fluence of Canadian culture and art, or the possibility ofcollaboration with Canadi ans. This issue lies absolutelybehind the interest of this state agency.
The Pennsylvania Council on the Arts (PCA), another US state agency devoted to art and culture, seeks to foster the excellence, diversity and vitality of the arts in Pennsylvaniaand to broaden the availability and appreciation of those arts through
out the state.7 Its goal is defined as to "help encourage, maintain, strengthen, and otherwise support many types of arts organizations to make maximally accessible to all Commonwealth citizens arts programs of highest-possible quality, with special priority to be given to those which reflect the traditional arts and to those which nurture the folk life, folk arts, and aesthetic heritages of diverse ethnic groups throughout the Commonwealth." Similar to the New York State Council, the Penn sylvania Council does not support any programs outside the state. They do not sup port international initiatives, either.8
7 PCA ’s Long Range Strategic Plan: 1995-2000, Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Council on the Arts 1995, p. 3.
8 PCA Goals, http://www.artsnet.org/pca/pca_goals.htnil, (11 April 2001).
9 About the Ontario Arts Council, http://www.arts.on.ca/english/about/aboutoac.htni, ac
cessed (18 April 2001);
OAC Services, http://www.arts.on.ca/english/about/OACservices.htni, (18 April 2001).
10 Welcome to the Ontario Arts Council, Aboriginal Arts,
http://www.arts.on.ca/english/artsprograms/ /aboriginalarts/intro.htm, (12 April 2001).
The Ontario Arts Council is organized on a basis similar to that of the United States. It is an agency financed by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Rec reation, enjoying great independence. The aim of the Council is to support artists and organizations involved in the arts in Ontario. Although people asking for sup port do not need be residents of Ontario, their initiative should be directly con
nected with the province. Because Ontario is home to almost 40% of all Canadian artists, the activity of the Ontario Council is a very important factor in developing and shaping Canadian culture. The goals of the Council are restricted, however, to the enjoymentand benefit of Ontarians.
Similarly to its US counterparts, the Ontario Arts Council is not interested in sup porting any activity crossing the frontier. Programs administered by the Council do not reflect the possibility of cooperation among the country-membersof NAFTA.9
There are, however, some specific features one cannot find in the programs of the Pennsylvania and New York State Arts Councils. Ontario puts a great deal of stress on facilitating the development of aboriginal art. Both in Pennsylvania and New York State thereexists groups of Native Americans, but their artistic activities, however, are not financed byspecialprograms of their arts councils.10
The Second difference reflects the multiculturalism of Canada. The Ontario Arts Council offers a special program for the French-speaking community of Ontarians, the aim of which is to encourage Francophone artists in Ontario to present their achievements in public. It is clearly stated that the program is created in favour of this particular group of citizens. In this way, Ontario strives to support an ethnic minority withinits own boundaries.
The situation in another Canadian province - Quebec - appears to be totally different. This province has organized its support for the arts in a slightly different manner, resembling that of Europe. There is a Ministry of Culture and Communica tion which is responsible for assisting the arts, artists and culture and for arranging a legal framework for the development of the arts. The difference in organization is
also reflected by the amount of money spent on culture. Although not as populated asOntario, Quebec’s expenditures are 35% higher than those of Ontario.”
Thefundamental principles of the Ministryare defined byconsidering:
• the Frenchlanguageto be the heritage and the means of communication;
• history to be the collective memoryof citizens;
• and the exchange ofknowledge to be the means of creating cultureand civili zation.
These assumptions forms the baseof the mission of the Ministry which is to pro
vide access to the various cultural activities and to enable citizens to participate in the cultural life of the province. Itaims also to develop the highest possible quality in the arts. Quebecstates that the projected goals can be achieved only through the cooperationof both the federal and provincial governmentsandall the communities of the province.*12
” Canada Year Book, op.cit., p. 461.
12 Notre patrimonie, tin présent du passé, http://www.politique-patrimoine.org/
html/Rapport/Rapport.html, (12 April 2001);
Mission du ministère - Culture et Communications, http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/minister/
mission.htm, (18 April 2001);
Bienvenue au ministère - Culture et Communications, http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/ min- ister/ind_min.htm, (18 April 2001).
The Quebecois Ministry is the only one engaged in international collaboration within the fields of arts and culture. This involvement is seen as a means of pro
motingart of Quebec and the province itself. It is also regarded as one of the most efficient ways of strengthening democracy around the world. For of these reasons the Ministry strongly supportsartistic joint initiatives with newly independentcoun
tries. We should notice, however, that the strategic goals of the Ministry of Culture and Communication do not refer to NAFTA as the framework for possible cultural collaboration.
The examples of four agencies in the USA and Canada prove that the not-for- profit sector in the arts almost completely neglects the presence of the North Ameri can Free Trade Agreement. The provisions inserted by Canadian government into the agreement were in fact intended to protect cultural industries rather than the cultural activities of the nation. NAFTA influence upon culture, or rather the lack of such influence, leads to the conclusion that there is no not efficient way of protect ing national culture or identityby means of creating barriers.
The historyof NAFTA reflects another problem concerning cultural activities and possible threats to cultural identity. In 1994 no one could predict the rapid devel
opment of the Internet and the use of this method of communication in arts and culture. Nowadays it is as easy to read on-line US newspapers and magazines in Canada as in any other country around theworld. Withon-line radio stations already in existence, one can be sure that there will be on-line T.V. stations in the near fu
ture. The use of the Internet, rather than being a force undermining the art, culture and national identity, could turn out to beameans of prolific interstate and interna tional collaboration.
Thus, US-Canadian cultural relations after the signing of NAFTA prove that there is a substantial difference between cultural business/industry and culture and art.
Provisions added by Canada to the Agreement were intended to protect arts busi
ness and, in fact, this kind of protection turned out to be sufficient. On the other hand, the vast sphere of non-profit art and culture was not mentioned in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the practice of both US and Canadian arts councils (or ministry, as in Quebec) shows that the possibility of co-operation with the neighbouring country is not the goal of their activity. No one supports collabo ration and no one seems to fear foreign non-profitart.
The example of Canada as a memberof NAFTA proves that the vitality ofcultural activity lies in communities rather than in the treaties signed by governments, and that there are no direct ways in which government can stimulate or protect a na
tion’s cultural identity.
REFERENCES:
Atkey R., Canadian Cultural Industries Exemption From NAFTA - Its Parameters, “Canada-US Law Journal”, Vol. 23, 1997, pp. 177-200.
Canada Year Book 1997, Ottawa: Statistics Canada 1997.
Canadian Culture Not Protected Under NAFTA,
http://infoweb.magi.com/-ccpa/articles/article60t.html.
New York State Council on the Arts 1996/1997 Funding Report, New York: New York State Council on the Arts 1998.
PCA’s Long Range Strategic Plan: 1995-2000, Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Council on the Arts 1995.
You Gotta Have ART.', New York: McKinsey & Company 1997.
WEB SITES OF ARTS AGENCIES:
New York State Council on the Arts - http://www.nysca.org/
Pennsylvania Council on the Arts - http://www.artsnet.org/pca/pca.html Ontario Arts Council - http://www.arts.on.ca/english/about/aboutoac.htm Ministère de la Culture et des Communications - http://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Radoslaw Rybkowski, Ph.D., works at the Center for American Studies, he specializes in the history of American theatre, currently he is involved in the research of the higher educa
tion policy in the USA and Canada.
